ReviewStroke (Hoboken, N.J.)2024
A Patient-Centered Approach to Cardiac Monitoring After Cryptogenic Stroke: A Review.
Review in Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding patient preferences, experiences and engagement with ambulatory heart rhythm monitoring: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2026Article
- QT Myopia and Cardiac Safety: Expanding the Aperture of Arrhythmia Assessment in Early Phase Drug Development.Clinical and translational science · 2026Review
- Comparative Performance of Patch-Type and Lead-Type Wearable Electrocardiogram Devices for Arrhythmia Detection in Routine Clinical Practice.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Unveiling the silent enemy: Revisiting post-stroke AF detection.Indian pacing and electrophysiology journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to the variety of cardiac monitoring devices available after cryptogenic stroke to screen for atrial fibrillation, there is a need to understand the challenges and perceptions of these devices for patients. This article reviews in detail the cardiac monitoring technologies available to screen for atrial fibrillation after cryptogenic stroke/transient ischemic attack, with a focus on what is known regarding patient preferences and compliance in real-world settings. As the optimal type of device and duration of time to screen for atrial fibrillation after cryptogenic stroke continues to be studied, a shared decision-making approach that incorporates patient preferences with regard to the monitoring device chosen should be considered. Clinicians should explain to patients the uncertainty about the clinical impact of invasive monitoring, and future studies should aim to qualitatively delineate the viewpoints and comfort levels of patients with stroke regarding the use of implantable versus noninvasive cardiac monitoring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.